Zork Posted December 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, MegaMind said: Take it up with the Yale School of Medicine, not me. https://www.yalecancercenter.org/media-player/3779/ Yale School of Medicine "the older you become the greater chance you will have prostate cancer. That number, if you live long enough, may be up to 100%." https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/hhra/recordisplay.cfm?deid=127826 "Essentially all men with circulating androgens will develop microscopic prostate cancer if they live long enough." NO this is completely wrong! Yale center never says that you are guaranteed to get it. Many centenarians have never been diagnosed with prostate cancer. My late father was full of metastatic cancer but didn't have prostate cancer. Never use false information to justify side effects from practice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaMind Posted December 23, 2019 49 minutes ago, Zork said: For the last time you don't know what can be labeled as an experiment. This isn't an experiment. It is the observation of a phenomenon. Experimentation comes next by repeating the preconditions of the observed phenomenon many times in a controlled environment to produce statistically significant deviations from the norm. What you have isn't evidence. I don't believe we ever used the word experiment, nor are we trying to say this some form of scientific proof or scientific evidence published in journals, peer reviewed and replicated. We are not claiming that fraud or hoaxes do not occur. We are not claiming the researchers could not have missed some device hidden inside a cavity. What we are saying is that it is objective video evidence with scientists and medical doctors present to do their best to rule out fraud. What we are saying is that it is the best objective evidence we know of. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/evidence_1?q=evidence "the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zork Posted December 23, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, MegaMind said: My first hand observation is that Mo Pai could revolutionize our world and our understanding of it. It could offer proof of things most do not believe exist to anyone willing to invest the time to see for themselves. He is asking for specific observations of phenomena during YOUR practice. Edited December 23, 2019 by Zork 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zork Posted December 23, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, MegaMind said: I don't believe we ever used the word experiment, nor are we trying to say this some form of scientific proof or scientific evidence published in journals, peer reviewed and replicated. We are not claiming that fraud or hoaxes do not occur. We are not claiming the researchers could not have missed some device hidden inside a cavity. What we are saying is that it is objective video evidence with scientists and medical doctors present to do their best to rule out fraud. What we are saying is that it is the best objective evidence we know of. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/evidence_1?q=evidence "the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true" Video isn't objective and it isn't evidence period. Copperfield and Criss Angel can do terrific things on stage and can fool scientists. Stop using moronic arguments. You are claiming that you are not infallible yet you blindly follow a video with no evidence to back it up just some words from some guys who met the guy in the vid but can't display the same powers. Edited December 23, 2019 by Zork 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zork Posted December 23, 2019 Quote Causes Prostate gland It's not clear what causes prostate cancer. Doctors know that prostate cancer begins when some cells in your prostate become abnormal. Mutations in the abnormal cells' DNA cause the cells to grow and divide more rapidly than normal cells do. The abnormal cells continue living, when other cells would die. The accumulating abnormal cells form a tumor that can grow to invade nearby tissue. Some abnormal cells can also break off and spread (metastasize) to other parts of the body. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/prostate-cancer/symptoms-causes/syc-20353087 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaMind Posted December 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, Zork said: NO this is completely wrong! Yale center never says that you are guaranteed to get it. Many centenarians have never been diagnosed with prostate cancer. My late father was full of metastatic cancer but didn't have prostate cancer. Never use false information to justify side effects from practice. https://www.yalecancercenter.org/media-player/3779/ Yale School of Medicine "yes, the older you become the greater chance you will have prostate cancer. That number, if you live long enough, may be up to 100%." https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/hhra/recordisplay.cfm?deid=127826 "Essentially all men with circulating androgens will develop microscopic prostate cancer if they live long enough." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4324338/ "all men, if they live long enough, can expect to get the disease." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/prostate-cancer/prostate-cancer-age-specific-screening-guidelines "Most men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough." https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/prostate-cancer-whats-your-risk "The studies suggest that up to 46% of men in their 50s may harbor such cancerous cells; for men in their 70s, it rises as high as 83%. ... most men will develop prostate cancer if they live long enough." https://www.nature.com/articles/528S117a "Live long enough, and most men will develop prostate cancer." 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaMind Posted December 23, 2019 12 minutes ago, Zork said: He is asking for specific observations of phenomena during YOUR practice. He needs to come see for himself. Unfortunately sharing such information here will only be be used as ammunition against us. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zork Posted December 23, 2019 (edited) I provided a link from a very respectable institution that says the same thing: what causes prostate cancer isn't conclusive. 5 minutes ago, MegaMind said: "all men, if they live long enough, can expect to get the disease." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/prostate-cancer/prostate-cancer-age-specific-screening-guidelines LIAR! The link says "MOST men" not "All men"!!!!!!! 5 minutes ago, MegaMind said: The studies suggest that up to 46% of men in their 50s may harbor such cancerous cells; for men in their 70s, it rises as high as 83%. The link needs a login and the quote doesn't specify if it is talking about malignant tumors or not. You can live a full life with an enlarged prostate with few problems. What JIm, Kostas and Chang have is MALIGNANT PROSTATE CANCER. Which is different from the lies that what you are selling us here. Edited December 23, 2019 by Zork Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zork Posted December 23, 2019 Just now, MegaMind said: He needs to come see for himself. Unfortunately sharing such information here will only be be used as ammunition against us. No he doesn't. This is proof that you have 0 (zero, zilch, Nada, Kaput) to show for your years of dabbling. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaMind Posted December 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, Zork said: I provided a link from a very respectable institution that says the same thing: what causes prostate cancer isn't conclusive. LIAR! The link says "MOST men" not "All men"!!!!!!! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4324338/ "all men, if they live long enough, can expect to get the disease." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaMind Posted December 23, 2019 19 minutes ago, Zork said: Video isn't objective and it isn't evidence period. Copperfield and Criss Angel can do terrific things on stage and can fool scientists. Stop using moronic arguments. You are claiming that you are not infallible yet you blindly follow a video with no evidence to back it up just some words from some guys who met the guy in the vid but can't display the same powers. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/evidence_1?q=evidence "the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true" The facts are a team of scientists and medical doctors did visit John, did strip him to a shirt and underwear, did check him for metal with a metal detector, did take him to a random location they chose to get a demo. This much at least was recorded objectively on video. We are not claiming this proves it was not a fraud, or a hoax. We are not claiming that the scientists and medical doctors did not miss a device hidden in a bodily cavity, that was not metallic. We are not claiming to be infallible. What we are claiming is that by definition it is objective, and by definition it is evidence. What we are claiming is that it is the best objective evidence we know of. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Earl Grey Posted December 23, 2019 What’s bizarre is that no distinction is being made between malignant and other forms. Looking at those links shows you’re not just cherry-picking information, but distorting it. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaMind Posted December 23, 2019 9 minutes ago, Zork said: No he doesn't. This is proof that you have 0 (zero, zilch, Nada, Kaput) to show for your years of dabbling. We can only show others the evidence John provided, and hope some decide to come and see for themselves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Earl Grey Posted December 23, 2019 (edited) And yet I quoted someone from the Yale school of medicine, who can be contacted this moment, mind you, gave information on Flying Phoenix, but that still doesn’t pass your tests. Edited December 23, 2019 by Earl Grey 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaMind Posted December 23, 2019 13 minutes ago, Zork said: I provided a link from a very respectable institution that says the same thing: what causes prostate cancer isn't conclusive. LIAR! The link says "MOST men" not "All men"!!!!!!! The link needs a login and the quote doesn't specify if it is talking about malignant tumors or not. You can live a full life with an enlarged prostate with few problems. What JIm, Kostas and Chang have is MALIGNANT PROSTATE CANCER. Which is different from the lies that what you are selling us here. Which link needs a login? Jim's cancer was due to agent orange exposure. Kosta has never been confirmed to have any form of cancer there were only rumours. Lawrence Blair claims John (now in his 80s) has cancer, but does not specify what type of cancer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaMind Posted December 23, 2019 Just now, Earl Grey said: And yet I quoted someone from the Yale school of medicine, who can be contacted this moment, mind you, who gave information on Flying Phoenix, and yet that doesn’t pass your tests. Link? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Earl Grey Posted December 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, MegaMind said: Link? From Terry’s thread. You can email the doctor yourself to verify. "The practice of Flying Phoenix Qigong elevates parasympathetic tone. The practice of this system of hygienics is truly restorative in real time and over time afterwards.” -- Yetsa A. Tuakli-Wosornu, M.D., M.P.H., IOC Dip. Sp. Med. Assistant Clinical Professor, Yale School of Public Health Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, International Olympic Committee (IOC) Working Group on the Prevention of Harassment and Abuse in Sport, World Obstacle Course Racing (FISO) Safeguarding Committee International Blind Sports Federation (IBSA) Medical Committee. (Dr. Tuakli-Wosornu is a former All-American in track and field, when she was a Yale undergrad and also Olympic competitor in the long-jump for Ghana. She earned her medical degree from the Harvard Medical School and Masters in Public Health from Johns Hopkins University.) 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zork Posted December 23, 2019 24 minutes ago, MegaMind said: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/evidence_1?q=evidence "the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true" The facts are a team of scientists and medical doctors did visit John, did strip him to a shirt and underwear, did check him for metal with a metal detector, did take him to a random location they chose to get a demo. This much at least was recorded objectively on video. We are not claiming this proves it was not a fraud, or a hoax. We are not claiming that the scientists and medical doctors did not miss a device hidden in a bodily cavity, that was not metallic. We are not claiming to be infallible. What we are claiming is that by definition it is objective, and by definition it is evidence. What we are claiming is that it is the best objective evidence we know of. By the same account, Criss Angel is very powerful qigong user. Why don't you visit him to learn? Stop the lying and playing around with words. Video isn't evidence. a fact or an event in nature or society, especially one that is not fully understood https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/phenomenon?q=phenomenon What you have on vid is a phenomenon. Not evidence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaMind Posted December 23, 2019 1 minute ago, Zork said: By the same account, Criss Angel is very powerful qigong user. Why don't you visit him to learn? Stop the lying and playing around with words. Video isn't evidence. a fact or an event in nature or society, especially one that is not fully understood https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/phenomenon?q=phenomenon What you have on vid is a phenomenon. Not evidence. By definition it is evidence. I have yet to see Chris Angel stripped to a shirt and underwear in a controlled location and checked with a metal detector by a team of scientists and medical doctors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zork Posted December 23, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, MegaMind said: I have yet to see Chris Angel stripped to a shirt and underwear in a controlled location and checked with a metal detector by a team of scientists and medical doctors. Then you can claim his 1.000.000 dollar bet easily. Why don't you go ahead? Maybe because you have NOTHING to demonstrate? You really have no clue do you? As an example, Copperfield had managed to avoid mugging by sleight of hand. He convinced the thief that he had no wallet while he searched him around. How the hell would you see past that? Quote By definition it is evidence. No it isn't. As i said it is a phenomenon because it satisfies the "not understood" clause. Edited December 23, 2019 by Zork Formatting 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaMind Posted December 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, Zork said: Then you can claim his 1.000.000 dollar bet easily. Why don't you go ahead? Maybe because you have NOTHING to demonstrate? You really have no clue do you? As an example, Copperfield had managed to avoid mugging by sleight of hand. He convinced the thief that he had no wallet while he searched him around. How the hell would you see past that? No it isn't. As i said it is a phenomenon because it satisfies the "not understood" clause. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/evidence_1?q=evidence "the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true" You can have evidence of a phenomenon, capturing ball lightning on camera would be an example of such. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zork Posted December 23, 2019 39 minutes ago, MegaMind said: We can only show others the evidence John provided Chang isn't part of your school. Jim and his students are. You have nothing to show. 41 minutes ago, MegaMind said: What we are claiming is that by definition it is objective, and by definition it is evidence. Video is subjective by definition because it only records the point of view of the camera holder. So many tricks depend on camera. Quote https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4324338/ "all men, if they live long enough, can expect to get the disease." Lies again. It is never mentioned in the article. The title is " In 2124, half of all men can count on developing prostate cancer " Where the hell does it say "ALL MEN" meaning all men in existence? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zork Posted December 23, 2019 1 minute ago, MegaMind said: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/evidence_1?q=evidence "the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true" You can have evidence of a phenomenon, capturing ball lightning on camera would be an example of such. Video is neither a fact, nor a sign, nor an object. Star wars is also on video. Is it a fact? Is it a sign? Is it an object? (is it a bird?, is it a plane?) So you just admitted you have no evidence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zork Posted December 23, 2019 So according to the WMP crowd the following vid is evidence Anyone involved in the incidents can lie about it and say it is real. You really have no way to figure out based on your very irregular criteria on what constitutes proof/evidence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaMind Posted December 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, Zork said: Chang isn't part of your school. Jim and his students are. You have nothing to show. Video is subjective by definition because it only records the point of view of the camera holder. So many tricks depend on camera. Lies again. It is never mentioned in the article. The title is " In 2124, half of all men can count on developing prostate cancer " Where the hell does it say "ALL MEN" meaning all men in existence? "Where the hell does it say "ALL MEN" meaning all men in existence?" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4324338/ "all men, if they live long enough, can expect to get the disease." Read to the end of the article. "Chang isn't part of your school. Jim and his students are. You have nothing to show." Many in our group were students of Jim, others of Kosta. "Video is subjective by definition" Cops wear body cameras to avoid the "he said, she said" nonsense. The camera functions as an independent observer objectively capturing what occurred without bias, it just records what occurred. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective 2a : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind 2b : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena https://kodsiengineering.com/using-video-evidence-in-accident-reconstruction/ "We love objective evidence. When forensic experts get video footage related to a collision or incident, it’s like Christmas came early for us." https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26322744.pdf?seq=1 "Body-worn cameras (BWCs) are one of the nation's latest policing tools to be used in the effort to increase police department transparency, strengthen community trust, and fight crime. BWCs are touted as game-changing technology in policing because of their potential to monitor officer misconduct during police-citizen encounters and provide objective evidence." https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/how-video-surveillance-is-used-in-personal-injury-cases-38998 "When there are two different stories about how an accident occurred, objective video evidence can be the deciding factor." 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
